Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)

[scifisam]

What about the money wasted on policing all these marches and protests that go on? I'd much rather my money was spent on ridding the tube of alcohol and stopping a few anarchists getting run over in London traffic.

So, you'd rather people weren't able to march or protest. You think expressing political opinions is worse than having a quiet drink on the tube. Rrright.

 

[Kizmet]

Bullshit. It can cause immediate and clearly recognised short term health problems like eye irritation, coughing to aggravation of asthma and allergies. Shove a cloud of cigarette smoke in your eye and see what happens.

The word 'can' usually means 'possibly'.

Which is exactly what I said. Passive smoking can possibly cause harm under a number of circumstances.. exposure to smoke.. location concentration.. prologued exposure over time.

No matter how much you try to divorce the two.. that fact is that drinking causes harm. It doesn't have to and doesn't always. But it does. And lots of it.

So supporting one ban because it isn't your habit.. but objecting to another because it is your habit is hypocritical.

 

[scifisam]

Remember, however, that this forum is not representative of London as a whole.

What's that got to do with anything? The question was whether there would have been such an outcry on here if Ken had put this law forward. The answer is yes, there would have been and actually was just as much outcry when it was discussed long before the election. It's got nothing to do with how representative of London this forum is.

 

[Roadkill]

Homosexual conspiracy ftw!

Damn. Outed.

 

[ajdown]

So, you'd rather people weren't able to march or protest. You think expressing political opinions is worse than having a quiet drink on the tube. Rrright.

I've never felt the need to join a protest march, nope. Yet my taxes are wasted on paying for extra police to look after them all.

If you think wasting taxpayer's money on removing alcohol from public transport, why is your view more important than mine?

Or could it be that they are both legitimate opinions that hold the same amount of validity, and we just happen to have different views?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh come off it. Smoking in a confined space is directly irritating to everyone around you regardless of passive smoking issues, and there is the fire hazard point. And as I said - I smoke. _Drinking_ in a confined space has no effect on other people around you, apart perhaps from the smell, which is much much worse from other food and drink regarding which there has been no attempt at a ban, and there is no risk of a fire from a discarded can of Stella.

 

[ajdown]

What's that got to do with anything? .... It's got nothing to do with how representative of London this forum is.

Have you seen much media air/print time given over to what a bad idea this is? Most of what I've seen in the mainstream media today has been supportive.

 

[Kizmet]

Oh come off it. Smoking in a confined space is directly irritating to everyone around you regardless of passive smoking issues, and there is the fire hazard point. And as I said - I smoke. _Drinking_ in a confined space has no effect on other people around you, apart perhaps from the smell, which is much much worse from other food and drink regarding which there has been no attempt at a ban, and there is no risk of a fire from a discarded can of Stella.

The problem with your point of view is that you are only considering the actual action of drinking - the putting of the can against your lips. That's shortsighted because drinking affects your behaviour.

It's that effect on behaviour that must be compared.

You don't see a comparison because you're comparing them wrongly.

 

[scifisam]

The word 'can' usually means 'possibly'.

Which is exactly what I said. Passive smoking can possibly cause harm under a number of circumstances.. exposure to smoke.. location concentration.. prologued exposure over time.

Nio matter how much you try to divorce the two.. that fact is that drinking causes harm. It doesn't have to and doesn't always. But it does. And lots of it.

So supporting one ban because it isn't your habit.. but objecting to another because it is your habit is hypocritical.

There's no possibly about it. Passive smoking does cause harm.

Alcohol, in itself, doesn't cause harm to anyone but the drinker. It needs other factors, such as excessive consumption, before it causes harm.

If you want to ban alcohol on the tube because alcohol might lead people to get violent, then you really should be advocating banning alcohol altogether. Tube journeys aren't long enough for someone to get drunk on.

BTW, qute a lot of people support the smoking ban despite being smokers who don't drink on the tube. You must have missed ymu's post.

@aj - sorry, I'm not engaging with you any more. You're a terrible troll.

 

[ajdown]

apart perhaps from the smell, which is much much worse from other food and drink regarding which there has been no attempt at a ban.

Personally I would welcome that. It'd certainly reduce the amount of litter thrown around, especially on buses given that there's somewhere selling fried chicken on almost every corner.

, and there is no risk of a fire from a discarded can of Stella.

I'm not sure if this has ever happened but certainly metal objects like beer cans coming into contact with the live rail on the Tube could cause a spark which, given all the grease, oil and other rubbish down there could result in a fire - plus, of course, also a can is much harder than, say a newspaper, and could flick up and damage delicate underframe equipment on a tube train.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The problem with your point of view is that you are only considering the actual action of drinking - the putting of the can against your lips. That's shortsighted because drinking affects your behaviour.

It's that effect on behaviour that must be compared.

You don't see a comparison because you're comparing them wrongly.

You're not, surely, claiming that banning drinking on the tube will have any effect on overall alcohol consumption?

 

[ajdown]

@aj - sorry, I'm not engaging with you any more. You're a terrible troll.

So expressing an unpopular opinion round here is trolling? Shame really.

 

[Crispy]

Actually, I support this ban, as it's made pissing about on an internet message board great fun today

 

[Yossarian]

I've never felt the need to join a protest march, nope. Yet my taxes are wasted on paying for extra police to look after them all.

If you think wasting taxpayer's money on removing alcohol from public transport, why is your view more important than mine?

Or could it be that they are both legitimate opinions that hold the same amount of validity, and we just happen to have different views?

No, your opinion clearly holds far less validity than the other person's - the right of people to hold political demonstrations is one of the cornerstones of your country's ability to call itself a free society. By comparison, your quibbles about people having an alcoholic drink on public transport are as important as neighbours arguing over a two-inch difference in hedge size.

 

[Kizmet]

There's no possibly about it. Passive smoking does cause harm.

Under certain circumstances.

Alcohol, in itself, doesn't cause harm to anyone but the drinker. It needs other factors, such as excessive consumption, before it causes harm.

We aren't talking about alcohol in itself.. we are talking about alcohol in a public context.

I think you're doing the same thing as fridgemagnet and comparing the wrong elements of each to each other.

If you want to ban alcohol on the tube because alcohol might lead people to get violent, then you really should be advocating banning alcohol altogether.

Now there's an idea for Boris..... the next logical step?

 

[Kizmet]

You're not, surely, claiming that banning drinking on the tube will have any effect on overall alcohol consumption?

Do you think this is going to be the end of the banning?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Do you think this is going to be the end of the banning?

Banning the consumption of alcohol on the tube is what we are discussing here.

 

[Kizmet]

Banning the consumption of alcohol on the tube is what we are discussing here.

Just like banning smoking was what we were talking about then when folk like me said just wait.. alcohol next...

 

[Roadkill]

Do you think this is going to be the end of the banning?

Probably not, no.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Just like banning smoking was what we were talking about then when folk like me said just wait.. alcohol next...

Saying "just wait, alcohol next" is a different topic to "smoking bans". If the topic were "banning things generally" it would be relevant. One might wish to start a more general thread in Philosophy or somewhere on the matter - and there are already some.

The chances of this being the first step in a general ban on alcohol are zero. The chances of this being an indication generally of restrictions on liberties for no good reason, with the excuse of blaming alcohol, are reasonable, but then I'm not the one defending this.

 

[ajdown]

No, your opinion clearly holds far less validity than the other person's - the right of people to hold political demonstrations is one of the cornerstones of your country's ability to call itself a free society. By comparison, your quibbles about people having an alcoholic drink on public transport are as important as neighbours arguing over a two-inch difference in hedge size.

Actually people have fought over less, and spent thousands in legal costs trying to get 'petty' things like that sorted out.

Since when did having an alcoholic drink on public transport become a 'right'? It isn't. Never has been. It's only now that it's becoming an issue and it's having to be explicitely banned that people are under the false impression that they could all along.

There are a lot of things that are 'unwritten rules' about what you can and can't do in public places. It shouldn't have to take up valuable political time passing a law on something that was never allowed in the first place.

"Not banning" does not automatically equate 'is allowed', by the way.

 

[ajdown]

Just like banning smoking was what we were talking about then when folk like me said just wait.. alcohol next...

It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills. I see no issue here.

 

[Kizmet]

Saying "just wait, alcohol next" is a different topic to "smoking bans". If the topic were "banning things generally" it would be relevant. One might wish to start a more general thread in Philosophy or somewhere on the matter - and there are already some.

It's not a different topic it's a logical extension.

The chances of this being the first step in a general ban on alcohol are zero. The chances of this being an indication generally of restrictions on liberties for no good reason, with the excuse of blaming alcohol, are reasonable, but then I'm not the one defending this.

Neither am I.. if you look closely.

 

[Kizmet]

It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills. I see no issue here.

Head down your local boozer and say that... I'm certain you'll see a few issues being raised....

 

[Roadkill]

It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills. I see no issue here.

Then we can start on getting rid of all the nasty laws passed by that disgraceful leftist Roy Jenkins, eh?

 

[editor]

First point, I doubt there would be this outcry.

So despite everyone here telling you differently, you know best, yes?

The word 'can' usually means 'possibly'.

No, it means, "almost always."

Tobacco smoke is an irritant. Blow it in your eyes and they sting. If anyone suffers an allergy they can experience "stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, and other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure."

And here's the science bit:
"Short-term passive smoking causes endothelial dysfunction via oxidative stress in nonsmokers"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902597

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's not a different topic it's a logical extension.



Neither am I.. if you look closely.

If you want to play devil's advocate, you have to do a lot better at arguing the devil's position.

 

[Yossarian]

it's having to be explicitely banned that people are under the false impression that they could all along.

Since it isn't being banned until a few weeks from now, I think people were under the completely correct impression that they could all along.

Are you a regular user of public transport in London?

 

[ajdown]

Then we can start on getting rid of all the nasty laws passed by that disgraceful leftist Roy Jenkins, eh?

I'm not familiar with what he's supposed to have done wrong, so if it's relevant you'll have to list them.

 

[Kizmet]

If you want to play devil's advocate, you have to do a lot better at arguing the devil's position.

I don't do devils advocacy work anymore. He has Boris now.



I said what I said.. that in my opinion if you supported the ban on smoking I'm not interested in your whinging about banning drinking.

They took away a much bigger part of my life when they banned smoking than this law will take from yours.